1. Title, director and release year?
Blue Gold, Sam Bozzo, 2009
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film argues that people around the world need to be more aware of water consumption, as well as, waste management to prevent clean water supplies from being contaminated. Instead of adapting our environment to diminishing supply of water, we chose to deplete the water reserves from other sources. Suez, RWE are just some of the billion dollar industries who have privatized water supplies around the world. When these companies take control, often times they undercut the existing workforce and, in some cases, do not know where all the water lines are because they fired the people who did know.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film discusses the limited supply of freshwater and that this supply is not only being depleted, but also becoming contaminated. We have been consuming more water than can be replenished. Deforestation, caused by human action, causes soil depletion which eventually results in fresh water returning to a larger body of water. Issues such as organizational sustainability were represented through huge corporations such as Coca- Cola. In countries like Mexico, the corporations use their power to obtain the resources and then sell their product to inhabitants of the country they have taken over. In Kenya, bottled (plastic) water costs more than double the cost of the bottled (glass) coke. The people are paying more for the plastic bottled water because the plastic bottle is being taxed. Another concern is the mindset of those in developed countries in that activities such as washing cars, swimming pools, and daily showers are expected and considered a given right to have these. However, these water intensive activities have made water a hot commodity causing issues for poor countries who comparatively do not have the ability to purchase water. It seems unlikely that this mindset will ever change because the majority of society has been purchasing water for past couple of decades.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
30 billion gallons of ground water are pumped every day. 1 microchip takes 32 liters of water to manufacture. We are currently pumped up to 15 times more recharge water than what can be replaced. As a result our soil is turning sterile and draining the land of its moisture and life. On the other hand, there are countries such as Bolivia that have been denied the right to collect rainwater because it has been privatized. This essentially means that foreign corporations have control over water that falls from the sky, making it illegal for the people living in the country to take advantage of a natural resource. When the Bolivians took to the streets to protest, the local law enforcement supplied snipers to keep the crowds under control. However, things quickly escalated and the police were non-discriminately killing. It baffles me how a government that, theoretically, is supposed to be protecting local citizens instead chooses to protect foreign corporations who are sucking the land of natural resources from the people who need it most.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
Although the film made private ownership seem like a last resort solution, I am not sure if I am convinced public ownership is a better choice. The film suggests government control is best for a country however the case of Bolivia proves to be an extreme case of government control. By controlling the ownership of rain water, citizens were subjected to new hardships, which is why I question the alternative to privatization.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
In the film it is stated that the Malaysian government has instituted the death penalty for polluting water in the country. It is my opinion that radical ideas such as this will truly change how people treat the environment and has the potential to make a significant impact. It makes me want to seek out other “radical” ideas countries have used to protect the environment and the impact they have had.
Also, after seeing the power corporations have in developing third world countries, this film compels me to seek out the negotiations and deals being made between corporations such as Nestle and countries they are taken over. It would also be interesting to find if any surveys have been taken from citizens of these countries to learn if their quality of life has improved once water has been privatized.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film is not directed to any certain type of viewer because we can all relate to the need for water regardless of race, age, or income bracket. I think the film does good job allowing for an understanding of how everyday water-intensive activities affect other people around the world, as well as, the environment we live in. The film offers examples of people who use their hoses during peak hours of the day and not abiding by drought rules. The film most likely will give viewers a more sympathetic understanding for how other people around the world deal with water and how much we, as Americans, take water for granted.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film does a great job of giving points of intervention including cases in which it has been proven successful. In Bolivia there was a water revolt that took back control of public water from being privatized. The film suggests a replenishment process to slowly bring water back to its natural cycle. It is suggested that by using small dams that will allow water to seep in the soil while can support small ecosystems. This is a perfect example of how we need to let nature help us rather than fight it, and it is with this natural coexistence, our world still has hope.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I feel that if the film divided the problem geographically and gave specific problems around the world it would be easier to create specific action plans for a particular area. Some sort of chart that shows consumption and contamination rates can also be helpful , especially since I assume that Americans are the major consumer of water.
Blue Gold, Sam Bozzo, 2009
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film argues that people around the world need to be more aware of water consumption, as well as, waste management to prevent clean water supplies from being contaminated. Instead of adapting our environment to diminishing supply of water, we chose to deplete the water reserves from other sources. Suez, RWE are just some of the billion dollar industries who have privatized water supplies around the world. When these companies take control, often times they undercut the existing workforce and, in some cases, do not know where all the water lines are because they fired the people who did know.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film discusses the limited supply of freshwater and that this supply is not only being depleted, but also becoming contaminated. We have been consuming more water than can be replenished. Deforestation, caused by human action, causes soil depletion which eventually results in fresh water returning to a larger body of water. Issues such as organizational sustainability were represented through huge corporations such as Coca- Cola. In countries like Mexico, the corporations use their power to obtain the resources and then sell their product to inhabitants of the country they have taken over. In Kenya, bottled (plastic) water costs more than double the cost of the bottled (glass) coke. The people are paying more for the plastic bottled water because the plastic bottle is being taxed. Another concern is the mindset of those in developed countries in that activities such as washing cars, swimming pools, and daily showers are expected and considered a given right to have these. However, these water intensive activities have made water a hot commodity causing issues for poor countries who comparatively do not have the ability to purchase water. It seems unlikely that this mindset will ever change because the majority of society has been purchasing water for past couple of decades.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
30 billion gallons of ground water are pumped every day. 1 microchip takes 32 liters of water to manufacture. We are currently pumped up to 15 times more recharge water than what can be replaced. As a result our soil is turning sterile and draining the land of its moisture and life. On the other hand, there are countries such as Bolivia that have been denied the right to collect rainwater because it has been privatized. This essentially means that foreign corporations have control over water that falls from the sky, making it illegal for the people living in the country to take advantage of a natural resource. When the Bolivians took to the streets to protest, the local law enforcement supplied snipers to keep the crowds under control. However, things quickly escalated and the police were non-discriminately killing. It baffles me how a government that, theoretically, is supposed to be protecting local citizens instead chooses to protect foreign corporations who are sucking the land of natural resources from the people who need it most.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
Although the film made private ownership seem like a last resort solution, I am not sure if I am convinced public ownership is a better choice. The film suggests government control is best for a country however the case of Bolivia proves to be an extreme case of government control. By controlling the ownership of rain water, citizens were subjected to new hardships, which is why I question the alternative to privatization.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
In the film it is stated that the Malaysian government has instituted the death penalty for polluting water in the country. It is my opinion that radical ideas such as this will truly change how people treat the environment and has the potential to make a significant impact. It makes me want to seek out other “radical” ideas countries have used to protect the environment and the impact they have had.
Also, after seeing the power corporations have in developing third world countries, this film compels me to seek out the negotiations and deals being made between corporations such as Nestle and countries they are taken over. It would also be interesting to find if any surveys have been taken from citizens of these countries to learn if their quality of life has improved once water has been privatized.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film is not directed to any certain type of viewer because we can all relate to the need for water regardless of race, age, or income bracket. I think the film does good job allowing for an understanding of how everyday water-intensive activities affect other people around the world, as well as, the environment we live in. The film offers examples of people who use their hoses during peak hours of the day and not abiding by drought rules. The film most likely will give viewers a more sympathetic understanding for how other people around the world deal with water and how much we, as Americans, take water for granted.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film does a great job of giving points of intervention including cases in which it has been proven successful. In Bolivia there was a water revolt that took back control of public water from being privatized. The film suggests a replenishment process to slowly bring water back to its natural cycle. It is suggested that by using small dams that will allow water to seep in the soil while can support small ecosystems. This is a perfect example of how we need to let nature help us rather than fight it, and it is with this natural coexistence, our world still has hope.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I feel that if the film divided the problem geographically and gave specific problems around the world it would be easier to create specific action plans for a particular area. Some sort of chart that shows consumption and contamination rates can also be helpful , especially since I assume that Americans are the major consumer of water.